TX - Chad Read 54, shot/killed by ex's bf, Kyle Carruth, in custody dispute, Lubbock, 5 Nov 2021

[MollyDDD]

It is only a misdemeanor. It's case number 2006441129. Happened on 08/17/2006 and sentenced to confinement on 12/15/2006. It doesn't say how long he was in.

According to this, it's the highest level misdemeanor.

Sec. 12.21. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A misdemeanor shall be punished by:

(1) a fine not to exceed $4,000;
(2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; or
(3) both such fine and confinement.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 12. PUNISHMENTS

I know I shouldn’t speak badly of the dead but this makes me sick. He’s an ex-con, a thief, a liar, a bully, and worst of all, he beat a woman! Nothing lower than that, IMO.
Mr. Big Shot. Big ol’ phony wanna-be. A loser, if you ask
me. But, he still didn’t deserve to die that day. IMO

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

I don’t think the law gives any weight to past criminal activity. IMO

I don’t know the particular laws of Texas, but IMO if a person knows an individual has a violent criminal history, that may make their use of deadly force more reasonable depending on the circumstances. Obviously criminal history would be irrelevant if the defendant had no way of knowing the deceased had a criminal record, but if Kyle DID know Chad had a violent past, that could be relevant to his self defense claim. He could be like “look, this guy threatened to kill me, he’d grabbed for my gun, and I knew he’d been violent before, so I had good reason to think he’d likely carry out his threat if given the chance”. That’s how I’d personally see it at least.

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

I hope not. Each crime should be judged in isolation. That is the basis for the assumption of innocence, but..............I did see here some time ago a poster claiming that the US is the only country in the world to have that. No. It started with the Romans, and further established by Magna Carta in 1215.

I want to make something VERY clear. I am NOT saying a violent criminal record in and of itself should give someone the right to shoot you without cause or justification. What I’m saying is that if you have a violent criminal record and threaten and accost someone who KNOWS you have a violent criminal record, that could and should factor into their decision to use force against you. Put another way, if you violently assaulted someone and were criminally convicted, and then ten months later you threaten to stab another person who knows about the previous assault ten months ago, they’d have more reason to take that threat seriously than a complete stranger would IMO. Does that make sense? I know it’s not a perfect comparison to what happened here, but I think I’m conveying the intended message effectively.

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

I don’t know the particular laws of Texas, but IMO if a person knows an individual has a violent criminal history, that may make their use of deadly force more reasonable depending on the circumstances. Obviously criminal history would be irrelevant if the defendant had no way of knowing the deceased had a criminal record, but if Kyle DID know Chad had a violent past, that could be relevant to his self defense claim. He could be like “look, this guy threatened to kill me, he’d grabbed for my gun, and I knew he’d been violent before, so I had good reason to think he’d likely carry out his threat if given the chance”. That’s how I’d personally see it at least.

I completely agree; if you have prior knowledge that someone has a violent past, it can and SHOULD be factored into the decision making process in a self defense situation. Moo.
ETA: I think both were at fault here, given the information we have. That CR sure can pick 'em! Moo again.

 

[MollyDDD]

Had to know that was coming. Hope he has good insurance. Wonder if it would even cover something like this.

I just saw his mobile home on Zillow, it’s for sale apparently.
Now I don’t think he’s got a pot to urinate in. IMO

 

[MollyDDD]

I don’t know the particular laws of Texas, but IMO if a person knows an individual has a violent criminal history, that may make their use of deadly force more reasonable depending on the circumstances. Obviously criminal history would be irrelevant if the defendant had no way of knowing the deceased had a criminal record, but if Kyle DID know Chad had a violent past, that could be relevant to his self defense claim. He could be like “look, this guy threatened to kill me, he’d grabbed for my gun, and I knew he’d been violent before, so I had good reason to think he’d likely carry out his threat if given the chance”. That’s how I’d personally see it at least.

I don’t know Texas laws either but I do not believe the victims past history or knowledge of their past history would be admissible.
Apparently Judge AnnMarie was in on those cases too, so he would know a lot. All the more reason why he should have gone inside the home, closed the door and called 911. But noooo, he comes outside with a gun. Now he pays the price. IMO

 

[MollyDDD]

I want to make something VERY clear. I am NOT saying a violent criminal record in and of itself should give someone the right to shoot you without cause or justification. What I’m saying is that if you have a violent criminal record and threaten and accost someone who KNOWS you have a violent criminal record, that could and should factor into their decision to use force against you. Put another way, if you violently assaulted someone and were criminally convicted, and then ten months later you threaten to stab another person who knows about the previous assault ten months ago, they’d have more reason to take that threat seriously than a complete stranger would IMO. Does that make sense? I know it’s not a perfect comparison to what happened here, but I think I’m conveying the intended message effectively.

Yes, I agree…and you should RUN away as fast as you can!

 

[BigTex]

Oh I loathe to wade into the quagmire that is 2A related thread but I had to come up from the depths to post.

First and foremost - without naming names - to whomever posted that the men “down there” like to control our women haven’t met many Texan women I take it. Sure there are cretins down here in the same ratio that you find idiots up there so let’s leave out the name calling of those of us who reside “down here’. You may not realize it but it’s not far off from using the “you people” description that is guaranteed to keep us all at odds.

Second, we HARDLY have the facts of this case. I would argue that we don’t know what happened prior to the video (but chads widow stated they record everything due to prior incidents suggesting there is more) or if there was any prior confrontation such as chad being aggressive in the past with Kyle. I was surprised that it took 10 pages of posts before the criminal history (which is possibly influential on Kyle state of mind) was mentioned. We don’t know enough of their situation we just saw a video which everyone sees a bit different as we well know.

Third, as a CCL Texan -I am NOT a lawyer - but I’m licensed, well trained and reasonably intelligent. I have carried a firearm almost every day for a decade but YMMV on what I perceive as my legal rights here in my great state. I don’t condone the use of violence to solve problems but the law and the culture here allow you to defend yourself if you feel in imminent danger. From my personal point of view I see a man tell someone to vacate his property to which the response was something on the order of ‘make me’. I think Kyle legally retrieved his firearm and defended his life and property but again we all see this event differently. I would argue that my point of view is significantly more prevalent throughout the state and more likely to reflect the perceptions of a Texas DA, grand jury or trial jury. The fact they are on acreage - land in Texas is holy and only idiot confronts an armed man on his own property AFTER being asked to leave multiple times is going to be damned hard to prosecute here.

One last last thing, what in the holy hell is up with these people arguing over who’s right or wrong when Chad is dead on the ground. They are all posturing for the video like nothing happened. It’s unsettling on so so many levels…

Just my .02,
BigTex

 

[BigTex]

Well we all know how effective court orders are don’t we? It didn’t seem to help Chad that he was possibly legally right did it?. Going to confront someone you have a history with at their house/work and not leaving at the sight of a deadly weapon is outright Darwinism. Why move toward the danger why not go away? He knew full well his kid wasn’t there already but he wanted to make his point and it cost him his life. He shoulda left (it wasn’t his property and the court order hardly gives him the right to trespass) called the cops and had the courts figure it out - especially given the 315 time implies a daily after school interaction.

Luckily for you Molly you don’t like it “down there” and wouldn’t drive through the state as I recall reading. We appreciate it.

<modsnip>

 

[TrustedTracker5097]

Getting things back on track here, I really think we ought not to base our conclusions of this case solely off of things said in the video. We don’t know for sure where Chad’s son was. As far as I’m aware, we only have Chad’s word about the 3:15 agreement. We don’t know if Kyle was aware of Chad’s criminal history, and we don’t know of any motive for killing Chad exists. Hell, people still argue whether or not this was Kyle’s house! If the civil suit gets to the discovery stage, I think it might shed more light on what happened. Who knows?

 

[Cryptic]

TX has very strong self defense laws, so this may be legal.

Though I agree that it maybe legal, Texas self defense laws are not as all encompassing as some 'net self defense gurus claim.

For example, Texas does have "SYG"- but Texas law also directly states that one cannot provoke the other party, or be in violation of any law and then claim "SYG".

Likewise, a cursory reading of Texas law could give the impression that it permits deadly force to be used to protect property or prevent criminal mischief after dark.

But.... the user of deadly force would need to demonstrate that deadly force was the only option and last resort to prevent the theft or stop, say the vandalism.

After an off duty poilice officer executed a teenage car burglar and then tried to argue fine points about dark and day light savings time, the Dallas DA openly stated that dark or no dark, "nothing in the Texas penal code allowed for deadly force" in that situation.

Rural counties may give a broader definition to "reasonably believed that deadly force was needed". Even still, I have a feeling that shooting one of the thieves that every six months of so, use a network of alleys to blitz my street (including my house) at night for unlocked cars, bicycles, lawn equipment, and mail box stuff, is not a good idea.

 

[Cryptic]

From my personal point of view I see a man tell someone to vacate his property to which the response was something on the order of ‘make me’. I think Kyle legally retrieved his firearm and defended his life and property but again we all see this event differently.

This Texan might see it differently.

Refusing to provide the child as ordered by a Court, or other "game playing" constitutes keeping a parent from their child. This, in my opinion, is a severe provocation. Then again, I have traditional views about family.

At the end of the day, if one does not want an angry anybody appearing on their property, it is best not to provoke other people.

If one chooses to provoke others (and maybe even bait them- as other posters have mentioned, the syntax used by the couple seems strange), than they need to have a very good reason to use deadly force.

In short, I would prosecute the guy. This would be doubly so if the shooter knew why the deceased was there. It would be triple so if he in anyway facilitated the provocation.

 

[MollyDDD]

Well we all know how effective court orders are don’t we? It didn’t seem to help Chad that he was possibly legally right did it?. Going to confront someone you have a history with at their house/work and not leaving at the sight of a deadly weapon is outright Darwinism. Why move toward the danger why not go away? He knew full well his kid wasn’t there already but he wanted to make his point and it cost him his life. He shoulda left (it wasn’t his property and the court order hardly gives him the right to trespass) called the cops and had the courts figure it out - especially given the 315 time implies a daily after school interaction.

Luckily for you Molly you don’t like it “down there” and wouldn’t drive through the state as I recall reading. We appreciate it.

Well, I’m off to control my wife and kids …

Chad and Christine had a legal, child custody agreement, Tex. Chad did not violate that court ordered agreement but Christine sure did, again. Chad showed up at the agreed upon location. The “home” was not owned by Kyle, it was his father’s home and Christine’s place of work. Kyle had no right to protect property that was not his own, and only an “idiot” would confront someone with a deadly weapon with whom they had a history with. Why move toward the danger and not just walk back inside of the house and call the cops? Talk about your outright Darwinism! @@ Kyle wanted to make his point, and it just might end up costing him his freedom. Also, court orders are effective when people obey the law. That little issue just might be the cincher in all of this.
PS. I’ve never been to Texas and have no desire to, but I hear the music’s pretty good.

 

[MollyDDD]

This Texan might see it differently.

Refusing to provide the child as ordered by a Court, or other "game playing" constitutes keeping a parent from their child. This, in my opinion, is a severe provocation. Then again, I have traditional views about family.

At the end of the day, if one does not want an angry anybody appearing on their property, it is best not to provoke other people.

If one chooses to provoke others (and maybe even bait them- as other posters have mentioned, the syntax used by the couple seems strange), than they need to have a very good reason to use deadly force.

In short, I would prosecute the guy. This would be doubly so if the shooter knew why the deceased was there. It would be triple so if he in anyway facilitated the provocation.

Thank you, Cryptic! Y’all give me hope for Texas!

 

[worm]

We aren’t sure on this case yet but pulling back and looking, the Texas law looks like it would be easy to set up a situation that “looks” like defense, kill someone, say “I was scared” and have the law on their side. Many of us here have seen murder plots that are extremely complex, the Biloxi Sherry Murders for example, but a situation much like we have here could be pulled off easily. And I think with defense being the current flavor of the day, I’m expecting more of these instances around this country. My weapons are my last choice, not the first, especially when dealing with someone who is not armed themselves. If Chad would have had even a stick or stone, I wouldn’t even read this case.

 

[Cryptic]

Thank you, Cryptic! Y’all give me hope for Texas!

You are welcome.

Though Texas does have a certain reputation, I think its laws and juries regarding self defense are more nuanced than many people know. This includes a good number of internet self defense gurus.

Take for example, these two self defense cases:

Shooter baits his neighbors into a contrived "self defense" situation, then opens fire killing one. Results: Convicted with a 40 year sentence.
Raul Rodriguez, Texas man, gets 40 years in prison for fatally shooting neighbor after claiming 'stand your ground' defense

Man takes offense to somebody urinating in public, then makes a decision to confront him. Victim at one point strikes the man in the face. Strangler responds with a "self defense" and poorly implemented choke hold that kills the urinator. Results: Convicted and sentenced to 25 years.
Terry Thompson sentenced to 25 years in prison for man's murder outside Denny's

The shooter in this case might want to really look at the first case. Rodriguez provokes neighbors at a loud party by approaching them while openly carrying a weapon. He then "advised them" to turn the music down. Upon his return, he shined a flashlight from a road at the revelers and opened fire when they confronted him.

This might be similar to:

Couple provokes parent by keeping him from his child through either refusing to comply with Court orders or other "game playing". Man then confronts them regarding this and is killed.

 

[BigTex]

I wanted to post one more time to clarify something. I owe MollyDDD an apology because I misread a post thinking that message about "down there" was theirs (I hate presuming gender) when it was not.

@MollyDDD I sincerely apologize for that mistake. We may disagree on what we see/think/guess happened but I am quick to admit when I am wrong.

Sincerely,
BigTex

 

[MollyDDD]

I wanted to post one more time to clarify something. I owe MollyDDD an apology because I misread a post thinking that message about "down there" was theirs (I hate presuming gender) when it was not.

@MollyDDD I sincerely apologize for that mistake. We may disagree on what we see/think/guess happened but I am quick to admit when I am wrong.

Sincerely,
BigTex

Why thank you Big Tex! That’s right neighborly of ya! Yeah, I have nothing against the Big Sky of Texas and yellow roses are my absolute favorite flower! So we’ll just agree to disagree.

 

[MollyDDD]

<modsnip: quoted post removed >

We aren’t sure on this case yet but pulling back and looking, the Texas law looks like it would be easy to set up a situation that “looks” like defense, kill someone, say “I was scared” and have the law on their side. Many of us here have seen murder plots that are extremely complex, the Biloxi Sherry Murders for example, but a situation much like we have here could be pulled off easily. And I think with defense being the current flavor of the day, I’m expecting more of these instances around this country. My weapons are my last choice, not the first, especially when dealing with someone who is not armed themselves. If Chad would have had even a stick or stone, I wouldn’t even read this case.

When I think about, it is odd that the two women outside are videotaping it on their phones as well as someone else inside the house? Wassupwitdat? What what were they waiting for, what did they expect to happen? I swear, it’s actually crossed my mind that this could have been a big ol preplanned set up for murdering Chad! Kyle gets off and then they ALL split the a cool 50 million! Thanks Chad!
IMO

 

[Cryptic]

<modsnip: quoted post removed>
Instead, once Christina failed to comply with the Court order giving him time with his son (apparently not the first time she has either not complied, or "played games"), he made a reasonable determination as to where Christine and his son might be found.

He was correct regarding Christina. He was also correct "in spirit" regarding his son as evidently he was strangely not with Christina despite the impending turn over, but apparently nearby someplace.

This is more evidence of willful circumvention of the Court order. It could even indicate a lure where if Chad showed up, the games would continue. If Chad gave a pretense for "self defense", he would be killed. If not, his child would be brought to him- and the games would continue next time.

I really hope this couple is charged ASAP. At the very least, they severely provoked the deceased by keeping him from his son- then killed him when he attempted to see his son. At worst, they set up a contrived "self defense" situation as a cover for murder.